[FrustratedMonky]

It wasn't you, but I was responding to this

>"It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters like a fiddle by launching a barrage of transparently political prosecutions just as Republican primaries were starting."

This really did sound like it " suggest political astuteness"

And, so all the way back, I responded sarcastically. If Democrats could 'Play Republicans like a fiddle", because they wanted Trump to win the primary. Then what happened? Where did all that 'astuteness' go.

[9rx]

I don't know what you think "play like a fiddle" means, but in common usage it generally implies that the one being played is gullible.

1. What suggests that astuteness is required to "trick" the gullible? Especially when we are only talking about a single instance of ostensible "success", not even demonstration of repeatability. Dumb luck remains just as likely of an explanation.

2. Under the assumption of easy manipulation as the phrase has been taken to mean, why do you find it unlikely that Trump couldn't have also "tricked" them?

In fact, if we buy into the original comment's premise, the Democrats not recognizing that Trump could just as easily "play them like a fiddle" suggests the exact opposite of being astute from my vantage point. But the view from my vantage point cannot be logically projected onto the original comment. It remains that the original comment gave no such indication either way. Where do you hear this "sound" that you speak of?

[FrustratedMonky]

I can't argue with any of that, since technically everyone could have been playing everyone else. Maybe Republicans are easily fooled, or maybe Trump is playing 5-d chess and playing both sides.

I just think 'playing like a fiddle' typically means a lopsided power dynamic where one person has much more knowledge, or skill. So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position. Not, that Democrats just got lucky once. This going back and forth pointing fingers about who was playing , seems like too many layers deep.

it feels like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo

[9rx]

> So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position.

And that is an equally fair assumption. But it is not written into the original comment. You cannot logically project your own take onto what someone else wrote.

[FrustratedMonky]

Since you seem to have a penchant for the pedantic. And I do too. I can retort, of course I can assume the meaning of common language idioms. All language is projecting onto what others say.

[9rx]

You can assume a meaning for the sake of your own purposes, but it does not reflect back on the original comment.

Your quip "So it is the Democrats fault we have Trump???" presumably demonstrates that you understand exactly that. After all, if you could have logically projected your interpretation onto the original comment there would have been no need to ask. You'd have already known.

Still, how you managed establish that there was even potential suggestion of "fault" is a head scratcher. Whether or not the account in the original comment is accurate, it clearly only tells a story of what (supposedly) happened. There is no sensible leap from an ostensible historic account to an attribution of blame.

You seem to indicate, if I understand you correctly, that because you randomly had that idea pop into your head (that Democrats are at fault) when reading the comment that the other party must have also been thinking the same thing, but I find that a little unsatisfactory. Perhaps we need to simply dig deeper, freeing ourselves from the immediate context, and look at the line of thinking more broadly. What insights can you offer into your thought processes?

[FrustratedMonky]

>>> "It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters"

The original comment did seem to imply that the 'White House' was in control, with a plan, and 'played' the Republicans.

The original comment made the connection that Democrats were taking action. If I'm allowed to assume that when someone makes a comment, that sentences are related. That sentences can follow one another and be related in a context.

And as far as my context viewing the comment. I have heard this idea ::

Trump is doing bad things -> Democrats failed to beat Trump -> Thus Democrats are the cause of bad things.

The original comment seemed to be in that vein. To attribute much greater responsibility to the Democrats for our current situation, instead of the people actually doing the bad things. aka Republicans. They are actually doing the bad things.